P.G.V.C.L KOTDASANGANI vs heir of bachubhai nanjibhai sorani jivanbhai bachubhai sorani — 29/2025
Case under Gujarat Public Moneys (recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 Section 03. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 30th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJRJ030003752025
Filing Number
29/2025
Filing Date
18-04-2025
Registration No
29/2025
Registration Date
18-04-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KOTDA SANGANI
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.G.V.C.L KOTDASANGANI
Adv. M C DAVE
Respondent(s)
heir of bachubhai nanjibhai sorani jivanbhai bachubhai sorani
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 28-01-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
| 02-12-2025 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary This Gujarat High Court judgment (RCS No. 29/2025) partially allows a writ petition by Western Gujarat Vidyut Company Limited against the State of Gujarat regarding outstanding electricity dues of ₹19,64,590. The court awards 6% annual interest on the principal amount from the judgment date instead of the 18% demanded, and directs the defendant to pay the awarded amount along with case costs. The court found insufficient evidence of any prior agreement supporting the higher interest rate claimed by the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This Gujarat High Court judgment (RCS No. 29/2025) partially allows a writ petition by Western Gujarat Vidyut Company Limited against the State of Gujarat regarding outstanding electricity dues of ₹19,64,590. The court awards 6% annual interest on the principal amount from the judgment date instead of the 18% demanded, and directs the defendant to pay the awarded amount along with case costs. The court found insufficient evidence of any prior agreement supporting the higher interest rate claimed by the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts